Evolution Must Go
(11-28-2012, 05:29 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote: I just tend not to jump into the fray on such topics because I am, quite frankly, a poor debater. 

Well, I don't think that's true, because you brought up a really good point there.  Reading Genesis, it's pretty clear that humans and all animals on earth were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29-30) and became omnivores after the flood (Genesis 9:2-5).  The plot thickens ...
Reply
(11-28-2012, 05:46 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:29 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote: I just tend not to jump into the fray on such topics because I am, quite frankly, a poor debater. 

Well, I don't think that's true, because you brought up a really good point there.  Reading Genesis, it's pretty clear that humans and all animals on earth were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29-30) and became omnivores after the flood (Genesis 9:2-5).  The plot thickens ...

I tell you a great book on this topic about the first chapters of Genesis from the perspective of the Fathers (including the idea of Adam and Eve being Vegetarian) is Father Seraphim Rose's magnum opus Genesis, Creation and Early Man. I reccommend the newer edition. If you are strong in your Catholic faith the inevitable potshots he takes at Catholics (most Orthodox do) will not stop you from getting something out of this book. It's easy to read and is just chock full of quotes from the Fathers as well as a lot of other stuff helpful to this debate. The best part is that the book will just feed your faith in the truth of Genesis and the Fathers interpretations of it, not destroy it.
Reply
(11-28-2012, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:46 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:29 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote: I just tend not to jump into the fray on such topics because I am, quite frankly, a poor debater. 

Well, I don't think that's true, because you brought up a really good point there.  Reading Genesis, it's pretty clear that humans and all animals on earth were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29-30) and became omnivores after the flood (Genesis 9:2-5).  The plot thickens ...

I tell you a great book on this topic about the first chapters of Genesis from the perspective of the Fathers (including the idea of Adam and Eve being Vegetarian) is Father Seraphim Rose's magnum opus Genesis, Creation and Early Man. I reccommend the newer edition. If you are strong in your Catholic faith the inevitable potshots he takes at Catholics (most Orthodox do) will not stop you from getting something out of this book. It's easy to read and is just chock full of quotes from the Fathers as well as a lot of other stuff helpful to this debate. The best part is that the book will just feed your faith in the truth of Genesis and the Fathers interpretations of it, not destroy it.

Thanks for the recommendation, formerbuddhist!  That looks like a fascinating book.  I'm going to put it on my Christmas list. 

It's interesting, based on some of Melkite's comments here, that an Orthodox theologian would have such a vested interest in creation if their tradition doesn't teach the same concept of Original Sin as the Church does.  But perhaps the difference is not so pronounced, as CrusadingPhilologist pointed out.  And even if Original Sin wasn't at stake, I think even a metaphorical reading of Genesis would still resist evolution, since the events would be either completely out of sequence or just plain contradictory.
Reply
(11-28-2012, 05:46 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:29 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote: I just tend not to jump into the fray on such topics because I am, quite frankly, a poor debater. 

Well, I don't think that's true, because you brought up a really good point there.  Reading Genesis, it's pretty clear that humans and all animals on earth were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29-30) and became omnivores after the flood (Genesis 9:2-5).  The plot thickens ...

If you believe God created ex nihilo each creature as it is today. . .

What about whales that swallow large amounts of water and probably trapped and ate krill and other microorganisms (if not on purpose, on accident)? Or organisms that have defense mechanisms like the porcupine or predatory features like the venus fly trap, which indicate that they were either eaten by or ate other animals?
Reply
(11-28-2012, 06:03 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:46 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:29 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote: I just tend not to jump into the fray on such topics because I am, quite frankly, a poor debater. 

Well, I don't think that's true, because you brought up a really good point there.  Reading Genesis, it's pretty clear that humans and all animals on earth were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29-30) and became omnivores after the flood (Genesis 9:2-5).  The plot thickens ...

I tell you a great book on this topic about the first chapters of Genesis from the perspective of the Fathers (including the idea of Adam and Eve being Vegetarian) is Father Seraphim Rose's magnum opus Genesis, Creation and Early Man. I reccommend the newer edition. If you are strong in your Catholic faith the inevitable potshots he takes at Catholics (most Orthodox do) will not stop you from getting something out of this book. It's easy to read and is just chock full of quotes from the Fathers as well as a lot of other stuff helpful to this debate. The best part is that the book will just feed your faith in the truth of Genesis and the Fathers interpretations of it, not destroy it.

Thanks for the recommendation, formerbuddhist!  That looks like a fascinating book.  I'm going to put it on my Christmas list. 

It's interesting, based on some of Melkite's comments here, that an Orthodox theologian would have such a vested interest in creation if their tradition doesn't teach the same concept of Original Sin as the Church does.  But perhaps the difference is not so pronounced, as CrusadingPhilologist pointed out.  And even if Original Sin wasn't at stake, I think even a metaphorical reading of Genesis would still resist evolution, since the events would be either completely out of sequence or just plain contradictory.

If you get the book get the newer edition (the first one came out in 2000 I think, the most recent either last year or this year). The new edition has a lot of awesome extras. I think Father Seraphim realized just what was at stake with the whole evolution debate and he jumped into it.  For those who put "science" on a pedestal his book will probably be far from convincing but for those of us who are more interested about the implications of evolution to our faith in what Holy Writ, the Saints and Fathers of the Church say it will strengthen your faith. Of especially interesting note in this book is how he shows that St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine--despite being considered to open the door for at least some small shred of theistic evolutionism with their ideas--can not really be said to do so at all. As for that last part I cannot enter the debate personally but urge you to get the book, read it and see if what Father Seraphim says about those two saints rings true or not. He also makes great points about how the pre fall world--was so different than our world today in many ways that modern science can not really study it. That is something that often goes unheeded, as if we must interpret Genesis in a way that coincides with the suposed findings of modern atheistic scientism.

A Catholic look at the whole question of Genesis that shouldn't be missed is Father Victor Warkulwitz's The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11. He looks at the first 11 chapters of Genesis in light of the various dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Faith as well as through the lens of scholastic theology/philosophy and modern science. I have never read a Catholic book on the topic that doesn't given some token nod to some form of evolutionary theory such as long ages of the earth or whatever but this one does not. It tries to show how evolution is incompatible with the Catholic Faith and how we should take it as the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church took it.

Reply
(11-28-2012, 06:31 PM)Axona Wrote: If you believe God created ex nihilo each creature as it is today. . .

What about whales that swallow large amounts of water and probably trapped and ate krill and other microorganisms (if not on purpose, on accident)? Or organisms that have defense mechanisms like the porcupine or predatory features like the venus fly trap, which indicate that they were either eaten by or ate other animals?

My answer is no different than that of any other average Christian from the 17th, 13th, 8th, 2nd, or any other century prior to Darwin.  I would simply say that God made the porcupine prickly and God made the whale to subsist on krill.  Lots of creatures get eaten by other animals, but they don't all grow spines.  Animals have the qualities they have because God saw fit to create them that way; why should I trouble myself with a more convoluted explanation?  Most of the scientists who hold the evolutionary theory are irreligious.  They probably have an agenda; or if they don't, we know for a fact that Satan does.  I'm sorry, but I can't trust these people one whit.  By the grace of God, I have the Catholic faith.  I don't need to seek any further, really.  Especially not from anyone proposing a theory that contradicts a necessarily historical account in scripture.
Tertullian Wrote:No man gets instruction from that which tends to destruction. No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our seeking, therefore, be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own—that, and only that, which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.
Reply
(11-28-2012, 09:07 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 06:31 PM)Axona Wrote: If you believe God created ex nihilo each creature as it is today. . .

What about whales that swallow large amounts of water and probably trapped and ate krill and other microorganisms (if not on purpose, on accident)? Or organisms that have defense mechanisms like the porcupine or predatory features like the venus fly trap, which indicate that they were either eaten by or ate other animals?

My answer is no different than that of any other average Christian from the 17th, 13th, 8th, 2nd, or any other century prior to Darwin.  I would simply say that God made the porcupine prickly and God made the whale to subsist on krill.  Lots of creatures get eaten by other animals, but they don't all grow spines.  Animals have the qualities they have because God saw fit to create them that way; why should I trouble myself with a more convoluted explanation?  Most of the scientists who hold the evolutionary theory are irreligious.  They probably have an agenda; or if they don't, we know for a fact that Satan does.  I'm sorry, but I can't trust these people one whit.  By the grace of God, I have the Catholic faith.  I don't need to seek any further, really.  Especially not from anyone proposing a theory that contradicts a necessarily historical account in scripture.
Tertullian Wrote:No man gets instruction from that which tends to destruction. No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our seeking, therefore, be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own—that, and only that, which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.

Ok. I get that. But that wasn't what I was addressing. I was asking how all animals could have been vegetarians if whales swallow large amounts of water, and probably swallowed krill or other microorganisms?
Reply
(11-28-2012, 09:16 PM)Axona Wrote: Ok. I get that. But that wasn't what I was addressing. I was asking how all animals could have been vegetarians if whales swallow large amounts of water, and probably swallowed krill or other microorganisms?

Oh.  Well then I guess the answer to that one wouldn't be too much different.  Before the Fall, lions ate plants, and sharks and whales ate seaweed.  Until the flood.

If, on other hand, the two passages are only metaphorical, then what's it a metaphor for?  And, perhaps more importantly, why was the metaphor hidden from every Jew for two thousand years until the coming of Christ, and for almost another two thousand years from the Christian exegetes until science finally took the veil away?  What would be the point of that?
Reply
(11-28-2012, 10:49 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 10:24 AM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: i didnt ask you to read the whole thing....and I guess your not actually such a truth seeker if scanning an interview and doing a google search is to much to ask. I mean its not like your condemning anything important...just Holy Mother Churchuu
exc

Can you come up with a concise list?  Yes or no?  Scanning a 175pg document is still a 175 page document.  Full time student and full time and a half employee here, I don't have time to do your work for you.  I asked for a list, you sent a huge document and told me to read it myself. 
Excuse me but I work full time as a painter AND run a painting contracting company....I found time to read it. In fact the only reason I havent posted the info is IHAVNT HAD TIME to get in front of my pc...Ive been posting from my phone. If you really were open minded about the topic a google search will supply your info. Try typing all this with your thumb....
Reply
(11-28-2012, 06:31 PM)Axona Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:46 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:29 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote: I just tend not to jump into the fray on such topics because I am, quite frankly, a poor debater. 

Well, I don't think that's true, because you brought up a really good point there.  Reading Genesis, it's pretty clear that humans and all animals on earth were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29-30) and became omnivores after the flood (Genesis 9:2-5).  The plot thickens ...

If you believe God created ex nihilo each creature as it is today. . .

What about whales that swallow large amounts of water and probably trapped and ate krill and other microorganisms (if not on purpose, on accident)? Or organisms that have defense mechanisms like the porcupine or predatory features like the venus fly trap, which indicate that they were either eaten by or ate other animals?

I think the need to ingest animal protein for sustenance is an effect of the fall.  The very ground was cursed, so it's not a stretch to say that the form of animals, including tooth and digestive tract structure, was changed by the fall.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)